Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
If they introduced this new 500 (great name IMO) with a new engine (Duritec 35 I hear) then it could turn some heads. But a flagship sedan with 200 hp? Ford is telling the Japanese "we can't compete". The duritec will be out by 2k5, but by then, all the mags will say that the car, while quiet and nice and all that, could use more zip. I'll bet anyone on that.
The new Engine is what can really save ford, like the VQ series saved Nissan. The soul of a car is power, you either have it, or you don’t.
What's the point of the higher seating position with no power? So i get a better view of all the other cars passing me by?!
They hit all the other spots right. The interior instantly makes GM fall to shame, and VW take notice, the trunk and overall size of the car seem to be very well thought out. The Mercury version is an absolute darling (interior), but @ almost 4000 lbs with AWD, this car is not going to kill the imports with 200hp and 200 torque. Does anyone here agree?
"Its backbone is under attack as the Nissan won over the F-150 in a comparo that was, unfortunately correct"
One or 2 comparo's from consumer automotive magazines do not classify a vehicle as a benchmark. The F-150 has won a few Truck of the Year award as well.
Understandably, I agree that Nissan's power injection will certainly draw attention, let's look at the overall sale leaders in different categories and you will see that HP doesn't dictate a clear winner.
It will be most interesting to see what its gas mileage is. That will be of far more importance to the target market than horsepower. This car is NOT aimed at hot rods. If you are one, and don't like the vehicle, oddly enough this is sign one that FORD may well have hit its target.
I have a Taurus Duratech and it performs more than adequately for all normal driving conditions. This size and style car is not meant for the "fast and furious" market.
OK, the car looks nice, but I think it looked better in the artist renderings. I think the actual car looks like a cross between the first generation Taurus and a Passat. It's nice, but not stunning. The car looks roomy and the dashboard looks nice, but climate and audio controls look very dated to me. And why on earth isn't a navigation system an option? Foreign automakers have offered them for years, why are American manufacturers dragging their feet on this? I know it's not for everyone, but it should be an option. I saw a Ford car from Australia (I forget the name of it, but it's a midsize sedan) and that car's interior looks like something out of Star Wars, with a very cool navigation/graphical display. Why are the American cars so far behind on interior technology?
The car seems to be underpowered as well. Duratec 30 (is that what they're calling it now?)was a kick-butt engine in '96, and I felt like I was flying in my '96 Taurus compared to my '87 Taurus. However, a lot of time has passed, and engines have come a long way. The engine in my Accord (240 HP) blows Duratec away. They should have developed a new engine with at least 250HP to be available at the car's launch, especially considering that the car will probably weigh a few hundred pounds more than the Taurus. The transmission may make some difference, but how much difference can it truly make?
Finally, I think the car is going to be more expensive than I initially thought. I really was going to consider the AWD Five Hundred. But it looks like the AWD model is going to sell for about 30 or 31K, maybe more. I was figuring about $27K. For maybe about 32K you could get an AWD G35, and, honestly, that is probably a much better car.
So, I sacrificed the AWD (love the G35, but I couldn't afford it) and bought a loaded Honda Accord, and it is truly stunning. I always thought my '96 Taurus was a good car, but the Honda is absolutely incredible. I know it's a lot newer, but I doubt that the '04 Taurus can comapre to the Accord. The Accord is put together so much better. I like Ford cars and I hope that they succeed, but I think they're going to have to do some serious catching up to compete with the foreign auto makers, and the Five Hundred looks like too little too late to me.
Nahhhh, no need to get flamed on message boards, your just sharing your view as well as other's so sometimes discussing different points of you, might allow others as well as yourself to understand some questions. I play devils advocate and while I will agree with someone (seceretly), I'll offer a different perspective just for sake of debate.
" And why on earth isn't a navigation system an option?"
The possibility of a Niav system might be possible, since it's why there's that upper storage bin above the dash for a future option, no word yet on that officially from Ford though.
"decided to buy a new Honda Accord. I have no regrets, and now after seeing the Five Hundred, I think I made the right decision."
The 500 is not aimed at the Accord or Camry, the future Ford Futura or current Taurus is what the Accord competes with. The 500 is much larger, and it's targeting Avalon buyer's.
" The engine in my Accord (240 HP) blows Duratec away."
And the one in the Mustang will blow the Accord away...Point: If you want real power, you buy a real performance vehicle if thats the priority. Plus, the majority of midsize car sales such as the Accord, sell only a 20% ratio for V6 engines, compared to I4's.
" They should have developed a new engine with at least 250HP to be available at the car's launch, especially considering that the car will probably weigh a few hundred pounds more than the Taurus. "
I agree, I too would want the 3.5L from the start, but because of the development of the Cyclone 3.5L, and current factory outputs, it can't be manufactured any earlier.
" The transmission may make some difference, but how much difference can it truly make?"
Considering your Honda's V6 has a 4:10 (maybe 4:41 now) which is needed since Honda engines need to rev high to attain the majority of their power. Hence, give them a 4:41 gearing for it's initial launch, then wait for the high revs of horsepower pick up the rest. it's the reason it feels that fast. Compare to that (depending on generation Taurus) 3:27 and 3:98. Now the transmissions in the 500 will be 6:1 ratio, for improved take-off launches, from 4: to 6:1, there's quite a bit of difference.
" But it looks like the AWD model is going to sell for about 30 or 31K, maybe more"
Which goes to show it's NOT competing with Accord or Camry, but higher tier offerings like the Avalon.
"I know it's a lot newer, but I doubt that the '04 Taurus can comapre to the Accord."
Ford has dropped the ball on the Taurus since Jac Nasser didn't concentrate much on it, which explains why the Taurus will go for rental fleets once the Futura debuts.
The wide ratio spread possible with the CVT or six speed (vs four or five speed) transmission really will get more out of the same engine. Car and Driver saw the LS430 gain one second from 0 to 60 when the transmission was upgraded from a five speed to a six speed.
The 500 CVT will have a ratio range from 2.47:1 to 0.41:1, and a final drive ratio of 4.98:1 on front drive cars, and 5.19:1 on AWD cars.
The 500 six speed automatic will have a ratio spread from 4.15:1 to 0.69:1, and a final drive ratio of 3.46.
On the front wheel drive 500s with the CVT (SE models), the engine crankshaft will turn 12.3 times for every rotation of the drive wheels when just starting to move, to 2.04 times while cruising.
On the front wheel drive 500s with the six-speed automatic (SEL and Limited models), the engine crankshaft will turn 14.359 times for every rotation of the drive wheels when just starting to move, to 2.387 times while cruising.
On the AWD 500s with the CVT, the engine crankshaft will turn 12.8 times for every rotation of the drive wheels when just starting to move to 2.13 times while cruising.
Yes, ANT14, the majority of the Camrys, Accords, and Altimas are sold with the four cylinder engine. The V6 Avalons, Buicks (non-supercharged), and so forth are also not very fast. The V6 Camrys, Accords, and Altimas only have five speed automatics. The bigger cars only have four or five speed automatics.
Completely different automotive catagories, cant imagine much cross shopping between the two. Ford may have dropped the mark in the 90's, but wait till '05, '06 and see how you feel.
Front head 39.4 40.1
Front hip 54.2 52.2
Front leg 41.3 43.6
Rear head 38.6 37.9
Rear hip 54.1 54.1
Rear leg 40.9 33.6
Trunk 21 14.8
HP/Torque 200/200 260/260
Tires 225/55/18 215/55/17
Wheelbase 112.9 112.2
Lbs. 3,815 4,509
Length 200.7 186.5
Width 73.7 69.0
Height 60.1 57.7
The G35 back seat and trunk are far smaller than the 500, and the G35 weighs 694 Lbs. more than the 500, negating much of the greater power of the G35 engine.
lame and very GMlike for Ford to not have the 3.5 ready to go at launch.
Ok bad example on the CTS, after all its a GM...
There is no doubt in my mind that since Ford began design work on the 3.5L Duratec 35 engine in early 2000 they should be more advanced in four years but still this engine is not due out until the end of 2005 or the start of 2006.
Ford says this 3.5L engine is a clean sheet design and is the forerunner to a family of engines based on the Duratec 35 architecture with a view towards a 3.8L and even a 4.0L derivative.
What makes the delay harder to understand is Fords' touted "flexible machining lines", the ability to retool in less than half the time with minimal incremental cost. This process is already in place at some facilities and will be at the Lima, Ohio plant where the production of the Duratec 35 will begin in late 2005, slightly under two years from now. That sounds like a lot but on the other hand the first Five Hundred - Montego - Freestyle probably won't be out before the fall of 2004. Currently the Lima plant produces the 3.L Vulcan OHV V-6 for Ford Taurus & Mercury Sable as well as the 3.9L V-8 that powers the Lincoln LS & the Ford Thunderbird.
Is this timetable set in stone, you're guess is as good as mine..
They already have plans of buying CVT's from Nissan, for the 3.5L since it's HP and TQ powers will be similar to their 3.5L VQ engine.
"Is this timetable set in stone, you're guess is as good as mine.. "
Actually they'll be another vehicle where the 3.5L will officially debut in, when that vehicle is introduced itself (in other words, totally new vehicle, with totally new engine)...THEN the 3.5L will be phased into the 500/Montego/Freestyle, etc. and trickle in numerous other Ford Lincoln Mercury vehicles.
"lame and very GMlike for Ford to not have the 3.5 ready to go at launch."
It could be worse though, at least Ford uses sophisticated and refined OHC engines over GM's OHV's....
Regardless of which vehicle by Ford the 3.5L appears in first it still will not be anytime soon since production is not set to begin until late 2005.
Yes, but Ford is falling behind these days.
And ok, are there ANY GM cars that do come out with the prime motor right from the intial model launch?
People EXPECT, but then what do they actually BUY/DRIVE? Honda fans brag about the 240 HP, while they are really driving a 1996 Civic or 99 4 banger Accord.
I trust power pedals will be available (or standard) in the 500, but they better have a LOT of travel.
Friends Santa Fe has 41.6 (without power pedals) and I can't fit in the driver's seat.
I love Torotrak investment idea. And what they have been able to do with their Expedition sample, proves to me there is possibilities of placing IVT's in big SUV's and trucks, and I'm glad Ford has located resources in helping them and continuing their efforts. GM just bowed out from Torotrak ironically.
"And ok, are there ANY GM cars that do come out with the prime motor right from the intial model launch? "
Yes, actually the new Malibu debuted with it's 3.5L OHV V-6, as well as the Colorado truck with it's share of Inline 4 and 5 cylinder engines. Then we have the Grand Prix which has stuck to the same engine line-ups for awhile, etc.
But this isn't a GM thing either. Let's look at the Camry which has gained the 3.3L V6, and the Lexus Es330, that just got the 3.3L without being redesigned yet. Previous Maxima got the 3.5L engine, before it's current redesign. Etc.
This is a common occurance. Granted, you could come into the market like the Altima, with a hearty I4 and booming V6... Ironically, after the 2nd or 3rd year, if you dont' do much to improve a vehicle (hence, the small styling retouches) Then sales will tank.
" I could still use another 1/2 inch in the '04 Malibu, with the power pedals."
Let's not forget the H-point of the 500 is a few inches higher than in regular sedans. Hence, the spread of your legs will be altered... So as an example, if your knees currently hit the dashboard knee bolsters, on the 500 it might be a bit more spread out leg-wise since the angle of your legs will be altered.
The Passat is an Accord / Camry / Altima / Impala / Intrepid competitor - they are all mid-sized regular (vs luxury) cars. The Toyota Avalon, Buick Le Sabre, and Pontiac Bonneville are marketed as large cars with luxury features. The Audi A6, Lexus 330, Infiniti G35, Acura TL, and Nissan Maxima are marketed as luxury cars with performance features (except the Lexus 330).
Now it's "Why does it look so much like the Passat?" If it was styled more radically, there would be critism of "It's too ugly for us".
No matter what Ford does, it's never good enough for some people. So, why bother catering to those types?
As long as it looks reasonably decent outside and has a quality interior and gets on the market with minimum of recalls and problems, it will do well. After all, look how ugly the Current Toyota Camry is and it seems to be selling OK.
I would look for likely a little more sporty styling when the Futura hits the market, as it is a smaller vehicle intended for a slightly younger demographic.
Has anyone found any preview photos of Futura yet?
Being 6feet7inches, I NEED all of the leg/head room I can find and I wish the power pedals would be integrated with a memory seat so I stop hurting myself after my daughter drives.
I can't wait to sit in one of these cars.
Kalusc, I haven't seen any memory buttons for the seating and or pedals, on the doors nor dash, but they might be on the seat itself, just as Volvo does. I'll see if I can find that out for you.
I really like the European styling of the 500. Here's what it will take to win me over:
- Amber rear turn signals
- Class-leading fuel economy
- Longer maintenance intervals (5000 miles for highway driving? Gimme a break!)
- Competitive pricing
- Improved quality
I could care less about amber vs red rear turn signals, a trivial issue, and I consider oil changes cheap maintenance, especially since I do them myself at about $9.00 a change. What the recommended interval is makes no matter to me as I change every 3K miles independent of what the manufacturer recommendations are. Just where did your 5K interval come from?
I would be very surprised if 500 quality/reliability is not up to par. Bill Ford I am sure will insist that it is, as the last thing they need is more bad press after the Explorer/Firestone fiasco and the rocky introduction of Focus-which by the way has vastly improved as well.
Pricing I am sure will be more than current Taurus if for no reason than to leave space for Futura when it enters the market, but they cannot get too out of line from the major competitors or it will not sell.
Anyway, every new Camry/Accord is lauded, and their styling is considered "irrelevant". Any new "other" brand has to be 'super duper looking' to get any praise.
For illogical reasons, station wagons and also minivans are "out" and SUV's are "in" thus all the automakers are trying to identify their crossovers as more like SUV's than what they really are. It's all marketing/public perception.
For all I know, Ford may be classifying it as a truck based vehicle as well, to skirt emission and mileage requirements. Subaru has decided to reclassify Forester as a truck by making a few minor changes such as ground clearance. PT Cruiser is a truck. Go figure.
However, cars have gotten far faster while being far cleaner, far safer, and with far better barkes and handling. I remember a test of 1971 full sized wagons by Popular Science in which they raved over the 8.3 second zero to sixty performance of the AMC Ambassador with a 401.
The fact you think it is boring may well mean Ford hit the sweet spot. Interesting styling can be the kiss of death for large family sedans.
And yeah, they have to separate the Freestyle since the suburbanites have to "think" that it's not a "wagon", or else their neighbors will laugh.
The 3.5 is quite deficient still compared to the competition and GM has much better engines available in their global family. No one is gonna rush out and buy a Malibu because of another rehashing of one of their vacuum cleaner sounding pushrod engines when the competition produces killer v6s.
The 4 and 5 are good engines for the colorado but that class of truck still needs a 6 cylinder for those who want to pull huge loads. Myself I could live with a 5 cylinder, but time will prove the 6 is needed to compete.
Which coming back to the 500, proves that even though the Duratec is a good solid engine, the competition is up a couple notches and the 200hp Duratec is simply not enough. The 3.5 should have been ready at launch.
As far as the styling, I think the criticism is not that it looks like an A6 or Passat as much as that the Euro sleek rounded look is old, tired and dated now. The 500 is simply behind on the style curve. However, its pleasant and should not offend, unlike the killer fish Malibu. I don't think anyone will rush out to buy a 500 based on styling or powertrain then.
As far as Euro interior, nice try. The 500 tries to mimic the look, but I don't think it entirely pulls it off becuase it still has a softness and bloatiness in its look that's way too American. Don't believe me? Compare the 500 interior pics vs. the Euro Mondeo pics (the Mondeo quite simply has an awesome interior) and you'll see what I mean. The Mondeo has a crispness and delicateness, a precision about it. The 500 has the same 'layout' to a degree but everything is puffy. Not that its bad, just don't call it Euro.
The Five Hundred/Montego is a handsome car, but I just wish Ford hadn't so closely aped the VW Passat. The car just doesn't look new.
Also, the Aztek and 1996 Taurus didn't fail because they were different or even "radical." They failed because they weren't attractive.
Both vehicles looked awkward. With the Aztek, virtually everything - the proportions, the detailing, the heavy cladding - was wrong. (Plus, it was based on platform that was second-rate as a minivan, let alone as a crossover vehicle.)
The 1996 Taurus had a "fisheye" front that made the car look cross-eyed, and the oval rear window and sloping deck made the car seem too small and "weak."
"Radical" and "different" don't have to mean ugly...the 1986 Taurus and Sable were radical and different. Park a 1985 LTD (the mid-size one) next to a 1986 Taurus. It's hard to believe that only one model year separates the cars, or even that they were made by the same company. But the original Taurus was a huge success, because it was a good-looking, handsome car.
It was the same with the downsized 1977 Chevrolet Caprice/Impala. That car was radical for its time - with upright styling, sharply creased lines and greatly reduced curvature of the greenhouse. It was a total departure from the 1976 Chevrolet Caprice/Impala - or even the 1977 LTD or Plymouth Fury. But it was a big success, because it looked good.